HL Deb 02 November 2004 vol 666 cc171-83

2 After Clause 6, Insert the following new clause"—

Post-retirement marriages

As of 6th April 2005 widows, widowers and surviving registered unmarried partners of all service personnel shall receive a full widows' forces family pension based on their spouses' or partners' length of service and final salary, provided that their marriage took place before the service personnel's 60th birthday."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

2A Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A. For the convenience of the House, I propose to save my substantive remarks until I have heard what noble Lords have to say in this important debate.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A. (Baroness Crauley.)

2B Lord Freyberg rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

2C After Clause 6, Insert the following new clause"— Post-retirement marriages

As of 6th April 2005 widows or widowers over the age of 75 of all service personnel shall receive a full widows' forces family pension based on their spouses' reckonable service and final salary, provided that their marriage took place before the service personnel's 60th birthday.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2B. In doing so, I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed that my previous amendment was not carried in another place, because it attempted to address a longstanding injustice. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Member for Aldershot, Mr Gerald Howarth, for his valiant support of my amendment in another place.

However, as the issue continues to create hardship for elderly and vulnerable widows, and because there are so few mechanisms and opportunities for correcting past injustices of this kind, I believe that it is right that I should ask noble Lords to consider a new version of my original amendment, which I hope will prove more acceptable for reasons of cost. My new amendment would apply only to those now over 75; in other words, to the spouses of the Second World War generation. Consequently, it will cost no more than around £7 million, and not the £50 million estimated for the previous amendment.

In speaking to my amendment, it may be helpful if I give noble Lords a quick outline of the relevant points. Prior to 1978, service personnel who married after retirement were not entitled to pass on a pension to their widow, no matter how many years they had served. The armed services have a unique retirement structure, and, although such a lack of provision was not exceptional in pensions of the period, the difference in the military is that 70 per cent of those entitled to a pension were and are compulsorily retired at or around the age of 40. That is not the case in any other branch of the public services. It means that service personnel marrying between the ages of 40 and 60 were put at a unique disadvantage to those in the rest of the public service, whose normal retirement age was 60 or 65.

It is not that the widows of such marriages get a small, inadequate pension: widows of post-retirement marriages receive no pension at all. Their husbands' years of service count for nothing, although that is not the case for those who married under the age of 40, who can provide for their widow. Such widows are therefore at a disadvantage compared to their contemporaries in the military and compared to those in the public services in general. It is particularly harsh for widows whose first husband was in the forces but subsequently died who have then got remarried to a retired serviceman. They lose their first husband's pension on remarriage, and their second husband can pass on no pension at all. There are many instances in which it applies.

Why should those in the services who have already sacrificed so much family life, and regularly face situations of great personal danger, be expected to accept financial insecurity for their widow, just because they marry after the age of 40 but before the usual retirement age of 60? It seems only fair that the armed services should be on a similar footing to those in the rest of the public services and not be doubly penalised, having had a shorter career in the first place.

The amendment would allow a pension to a post-retirement widow, provided that the marriage had taken place before the serviceman or servicewoman was 60 and that they are now over 75 years old. The age of 60 is also the end of the age of recall liability for the Armed Forces, at which people can be called up for active service.

The Government have repeatedly stated that making a concession in this case would have severe read-across consequences in the rest of the public services. In fact, only the police and the fire service have a standard retirement age that is earlier than 60, and it is only five years earlier at 55. It is also worth remembering that those in the armed services are expected to live and work abroad for long periods. That is not the case for any other public servants. In other words, different conditions prevail in the armed services, so it is only fair that pension provision should take such factors into consideration.

I must also dispel, in the strongest terms, the grotesque scare figures—£300 million to £500 million—that have been bandied about as possible read-across for allowing all public service post-retirement marriages to qualify for pension benefits. That is one of the reasons why the age cap of 60 is in the amendment. I stress again that it is only the Armed Forces who oblige most of their personnel to retire at around 40. That is not the case in any other public service, and it seems a pity that the Government wish to confuse the matter by pretending otherwise.

One of the other issues that the Minister has raised repeatedly is retrospection. I am pleased to note that the Government have been willing to break their own rules on occasion, when they recognise an injustice. For example, only last month, during debate on the Civil Partnership Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office, Mrs Anne McGuire, stated: The regulations will provide equality, as they will allow registered same-sex partners to accrue survivor pensions in public service schemes from 1988".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/04; col. 250.] That is obvious retrospection, and I applaud the Government for their good sense in choosing to right a perceived injustice, rather than dogmatically applying an unequal rule. I urge them to take the same path and apply the same logic in this case.

I also reiterate the fact that I am asking not for preferential treatment for the Armed Forces but for parity. The Armed Forces are expected to face different pressures from those faced by people in any other walk of life, as we see daily in Iraq. It is cruel that the widows of those who married later in life should be singled out for harsher treatment and inferior pension provision.

4.45 p.m.

Some might think that I have already had my opportunity to ask the Government to act on the issue. In ordinary circumstances, I might agree, but the circumstances surrounding the amendment are not ordinary. First, I know that the Labour Party is sympathetic in principle to the issue. It supported an even fuller amendment nine years ago, when the issue last came up in the House. Secondly, the nine-year gap has brought it home to me how few opportunities there are to raise such matters, while those affected continue to suffer the ill effects. This may be the last occasion to do something about the situation while many of those affected are still alive.

Finally, the ultimatum given by the Minister in another place has acted more as a provocation than a deterrent. His suggestion, which the Minister in this House read out today, that, if I were to drop the amendment, he might—I stress "might"—be able to address the matter at a later stage is no great encouragement for me to abandon it. The widows affected deserve more than potential consideration. If, however, the Minister here or the Minister in another place were prepared to go beyond a mere "might" and give an undertaking to help the widows outside the Bill, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. If that is not possible, it is only right that this House should speak up for widows who have no other means of communicating their plight and who want only to receive the normal pension for their spouse's many years of service. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 2C in lieu thereof".—(Lord Freyberg.)

Lord Fowler

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord has just said. This injustice has been ignored by governments of both parties; it is not remotely a party issue. In 1978 and 1987, there was some action, but the injustice to some of the oldest widows survives and continues.

One example that was given to me concerns an Army officer—divorced, as it happened—whose wife married again. He left the Army and only then remarried. He died prematurely, leaving a widow with two young children. His widow received nothing and had to struggle to bring up the two children. Just for the sake of completeness, his first wife did not receive anything either. That is not the way that we should behave to a widow, particularly after distinguished military service by a spouse. That widow is now in her early 80s. There is nothing that we can do to put right the injustice of the past, but we can make some recompense to her and other widows like her. That is what we should do, and it is the purpose of the amendment. Justice and fairness require such action.

The arguments used against this sensible course are twofold. First, the Government say, as they said in the previous debate, that it would breach their policy of non-retrospection. That is a nonsensical argument. About this time yesterday, we were debating with regard to the Pensions Bill an action of retrospection that was being introduced by the Government; that was the purpose of the debate that we had. One or two noble Lords present now were present for that debate. There has been no rule, as far as concerns retrospection, and that issue should not detain us too long.

The second reason—crucial and conclusive for governments—is cost. That is why this Government have not moved and why the previous government did not move. There is no other real reason. It is just a matter of judgment. I pay tribute to those who have drafted the amendment. The cost has been significantly reduced, and the extent of the application of the provision has been severely limited. We are talking about widows over the age of 75. I do not think that it is pushing generosity too far by Parliament and this House to act generously towards them. It is a matter of judgment, but I think that this country and this economy could afford to incur the modest cost involved. I very much hope that they will because, as it stands, the policy is indefensible.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. When the Bill returned to the other place, we put down an amendment that all existing widows and widowers of post-retirement marriages over the age of 70 would be entitled to pension rights based on their spouse's service. Indeed, we made a commitment to supply that provision.

Lord Morris of Manchester

My Lords, as we have heard, my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was told by the Minister in another place that, if any amendment was approved by your Lordships on this issue today, even the extremely modest amendment he has just moved, with all his customary skill and concern, the Bill would fall. Does that still apply? Can we be told before this debate concludes whether it does?

Baroness Howe of Idlicote

My Lords, I wish also to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Freyberg. As has been said, it really has been reshaped in a much more modest way. As we are near 11 November, it seems to be the right time and appropriate to redress this clear injustice. I would even name it indirect discrimination because the vast majority of widows and widowers are, in fact, affected. The case has been extremely well made. I very much hope that the Government, on reflection, will not just give an assurance but will agree to the amendment.

Lord Boyce

My Lords, we are in grave danger of repeating ourselves; the need for this is so obvious that it is inevitable. However, the new constraints drawn around the amendment mean that we are dealing with a very small number of people and a relatively small sum of money. It really would be invidious not to look after them, especially given that their pensions have been paid for by their spouses over time. Surely the Government must see that this is a reasonable thing to do.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I am absolutely certain that the Minister will stand up and say—as she did many times in earlier stages—that she has to reject the amendment. But it has much merit: indeed, my name was attached to the amendment that went to the Commons. Perhaps I may commend the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the way that he has pushed this issue—not just at this stage, but over a number of years—in this House. His argument has a great deal of merit.

The major problem that we face today is that the Government will say that they cannot accept this amendment because it will not be accepted in another place due to privilege. That, I believe, is a case which we cannot answer. Therefore, even if this amendment is passed, it will not be taken up by another place. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, pointed out, it is important that the Government understand that there is a great deal of feeling on this issue.

I was very moved by a letter that I received after the victory that this House imposed on the Government last time. A widow wrote saying that although she believed we would not be able to take the issue much further, she was heartened by the fact that for the first time in dealing with the MoD, it was not a matter that could be just brushed under the carpet.

The Minister implied to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that something could be done outside the terms of the Bill. It would be helpful if he could convey the feelings that those widows have; that this is an issue that is not taken seriously by the MoD. Even if the Minister is unable to deal with it today, perhaps the noble Baroness may be able to say that something will be done in the future. I hope that she will not just use the privilege aspect and say that this can no longer be taken forward, but that the Government will do something positive.

Lord Vincent of Coleshill

My Lords, in the light of the very brief reason that was given in another place for the rejection of this amendment—namely, that, it would involve a charge on public funds"— I should like to ask two questions relating to the precondition imposed at the outset of this Armed Forces pension review that the outcome should be "cost neutral".

My first question relates to the principles of equality and fairness on which a cost neutral condition was determined in the first place. I ask this because when the then proposed parliamentary pension scheme was debated in the other place shortly before its introduction, the question was raised as to how that very generous scheme was to be funded. The three-word answer recorded in Hansard states, "By the Exchequer".

Why then, in order to modernise important aspects of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, including this proposed amendment and, not least, the death-in-service benefit where the parliamentary scheme is currently four times more generous, should the Armed Forces scheme now have to make compensating reductions or reject other amendments to pay for it when the parliamentary scheme costs fell entirely to the Exchequer?

My second question is more specific. Does the cost-neutral requirement of this review take account of the fact that between 1 April 1990 and 1 July 2004 the strength of the regular Armed Forces was reduced by one-third? Between the start of this review in 1998 and the implementation of the latest announced reductions that will be fully in effect by 2008, they will have fallen by 10 per cent. Should not the effect of those force reductions on reducing enormously the overall pension liability to the Armed Forces as they get smaller be permitted to count as a contribution towards cost neutrality?

On that basis, I would surely hope that we could cover the cost of this latest alternative amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Freyberg.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, I want to add to the point about cost. I sat through part of the Pensions Bill yesterday. I cannot believe that we are arguing about a small amount of money to look after some war widows when yesterday there was a proposal that the Pensions Regulator should have non-contributory, index-linked, final salary pensions that can even be paid to non-executive directors, which is not normal elsewhere. I find it very difficult to understand how we could do that on the one hand and then, on the other hand, the next day cry "cost".

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend for his tenacity. He is a dog who does not let go of his bone very easily. We are continually told that one of the reasons for amalgamating regiments is that recruiting is so bad. When the Government treat the dependents of people who make a career in the Armed Forces in this way, what do they expect? People are not stupid. When people think about making a career in the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, they are bound to consider pension arrangements in the future. I do not think that this will help.

Viscount Slim

My Lords, I should very much like put on the record the attitude of almost "uncaring arrogance" of those in another place in matters like this and that they merely put at the bottom of the page that the Exchequer will not pay. I note, and I wish it noted, that in another place, quite often just lately—three or four times—they have improved their pensions and, particularly, what happens to their widows when they die: I see that they make clear that that is no burden on the Exchequer. Those in another place have a lot to answer for.

5 p.m.

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, despite the many strong and passionately held views to the contrary that we have heard in this debate, I remain very clear that the House should agree with the Commons reason for disagreement with Lords Amendment No. 2. I repeat the words on the Marshalled List: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient". The reason makes it clear that the Commons disagree because of the additional cost of some £50 million to give the benefits described in the Lords amendment carried at Third Reading. The House is familiar with the arguments. I explained them in my speech in that debate. My noble friend has also given a clear explanation of why this figure would have to be paid by the Ministry of Defence to the Treasury. It would cover the years of service in the Armed Forces before post-retirement pensions were introduced in April 1978 for widows and October 1987 for widowers. I am afraid that there is no getting away from this additional charge, even if we were to make payments from a future date.

As the House knows well, we would expect this figure to rise to some £300 million to £500 million across government as a whole because the implications for other public service schemes would remain. It would not be possible to limit any concessions only to the Armed Forces.

My honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Veterans, told the Commons on 20 October about his constructive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I understand that they agreed that it would be helpful to build on that meeting in the future, after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The Minister made it clear that he was prepared to give further consideration to this matter in those circumstances. I hope that, by restating that clarification, I am being helpful to noble Lords. However, obviously I cannot go beyond the words of my honourable friend, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has asked me.

I turn now to the further amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. The changes he has made, while reducing the cost of the proposal, do not have a material effect on the reason for disagreement. While it has not been possible in the time available to cost the amendment in any detail, the following points should be considered. First, the exclusion of unmarried partners brings no specific cost saving as we were unable to calculate the liability, given that we have no details of subsequent cohabitations. It did not form part of the £50 million figure. Secondly, while the amendment limits the age at which the improved benefits can be paid to age 75, in reality the age at which the majority of former service personnel might be expected to die and their widow's pension come into payment is in their seventies, so little is likely to be saved. For those widows or widowers below this age at the time of change, it will delay the payment of improved benefits until they reach this age, but the numbers affected are relatively small.

If carried, the amendments would impose an entirely arbitrary age limit, hedged about with qualifications which would not be defensible over time. It would, in short, be an untenable approach to legislation. To restrict benefits solely to those over the age of 70, while I am sure it is well intentioned, makes no sense at all in policy terms and would be at odds with our commitment to observe the principles of age discrimination legislation, where this is reasonable. For those reasons, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's amendment.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Freyberg gave clear reasons why the position of the services was different from any part of the public sector. He pointed out, first, that service personnel have to retire at age 40 and, secondly, that many will have served much of their time overseas, and thus probably would have found it difficult to marry during that period. The noble Baroness has not dealt with those reasons; she has merely said that it is impossible to distinguish between service personnel and the other sectors. Will she honour the House with an explanation of why she has said that?

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, the Government do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in his assertion that there would not be a read-across from this section of the public service to the rest of the public service. I am afraid that it is as simple as that.

I have been asked a number of questions which I shall do my best to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, talked about the change in the terms of the amendment, reducing costs from £50 million to £7 million. I should say to him in reply that we do not have a precise figure for the saving that would result from the change in the wording of the amendment, but we are confident that that saving would be nowhere near as great as indicated by the noble Lord. That is because, as I pointed out in my earlier response, most of the widows concerned would not be widowed until their seventies and would be expected to live into their eighties. The major cost issue which we have just been talking about is the wider implication for the public service, where we expect the costs to run to several hundred million pounds.

The noble Lord also asked about the issue of retrospection, specifically in the context of concessions we made earlier in the passage of the Bill—addressing the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. That concession would affect only those who remarry in the future, not those who have already remarried. In that sense, therefore, we do not see this as retrospection. Moreover, in the matter of retrospection, we are following a position that has been established by many governments.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, asked about cost neutrality. I would say to him that it is not the case that the parliamentary scheme is simply a matter of the Exchequer picking up the bill. The parliamentary scheme is contributory, and the level of both contributions and pay take into account the value of the benefits offered under the scheme.

The noble and gallant Lord also asked me about reducing the numbers serving in the Armed Forces. The assessment of the costs of providing scheme benefits is based on an individual's entitlement, and cost neutrality relates to that. It is not sustainable to argue that reducing numbers would allow more valuable benefits. Moreover, wider defence costs would need to be taken into account when looking at the scheme.

I hope that I have covered the points made by noble Lords. For the reasons I have given, I cannot agree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and do agree with the Commons reason for disagreement.

Lord Morris of Manchester

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the care with which she has explained her position. Can she answer my question: if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is carried, would it involve the dumping of the Bill? I understand from the noble Lord that he was told by a Minister in another place that acceptance here of his amendment would involve withdrawal of the Bill altogether. Is that still the case?

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, not having been privy to the discussions, I understand that that never was the case.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, if cost is the reason why the amendment should not be accepted at the moment, why might things be different if further consideration is given to the issue after the Bill has received Royal Assent? What will have changed?

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, I can only repeat that a discussion has taken place between my honourable friend in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. That discussion has been put on the record, both in this House and in another place. I cannot go beyond that discussion.

Lord Bramall

My Lords, am I right in thinking that, as this is a legacy issue, it does not have to be on the face of the main enabling Bill? Why cannot this matter be treated as a completely separate subject and the Bill go forward on its own and quite separately?

Baroness Crawley

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is right: the matter addressed by the amendment does not need to be in the Bill. I therefore refer noble Lords to the willingness of the Government to discuss these matters beyond the Bill.

Lord Freyberg

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment today and the Minister for her consideration of this matter, whatever her views. I am sorry that she was unable to give a greater commitment than the one she has given from the Dispatch Box about looking at this subject outside the Bill. This issue has vexed me for some time and, because the Minister was unable to say more than he "might" look at it, I have felt compelled to bring forward the amendment today.

I feel that it is more important to right an injustice than to stick to a rule that was unfair when it was first made and has had an increasingly punitive effect ever since. I have made every effort to frame the amendment in a way that will cost the Government as little as possible. I know that there is a difficulty with costing because no figures are available. The figure of £million came to me from the Forces Pension Society, and that is all I can quote today.

In the week before Remembrance Sunday, I should like to remind the House that those affected by this issue are mostly widows of Second World War servicemen who fought for a pensionable length of time—for around two decades—and endured great hardship without being able to provide for their wives in the event of their death, through no fault of their own and in contrast to contemporary colleagues in less arduous positions. I hope the House will grasp this late opportunity to help such a vulnerable group. In those circumstances, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

5.14 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Darcy de Knayth, B.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Denham, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Dixon-Smith, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Dundee, E.
Astor, V. Dykes, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Eden of Winton, L.
Attlee, E. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Elton, L.
Biffen, L. Erroll, E.
Blaker, L. Falkner of Margravine, B.
Blatch, B. Fearn, L.
Bledisloe, V. Ferrers, E.
Bowness, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Boyce, L. Flather, B.
Bradshaw, L. Fookes, B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Fowler, L.
Burnham, L. Freeman, L.
Buscombe, B. Freyberg, L. [Teller]
Byford, B. Garden, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Gardner of Parkes, B.
Carrington, L. Glentoran, L.
Chelmsford, Bp. Greengross, B.
Clement-Jones, L. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hamwee, B.
Colwyn, L. Hayhoe, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Higgins, L.
Courtown, E. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Craig of Radley, L. [Teller] Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Craigavon, V. Hooper, B.
Crathorne, L. Hooson, L.
Crickhowell, L. Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L. Rawlings, B.
Howe of Idlicote, B. Razzall, L.
Howell of Guildford, L. Redesdale, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L. Rees-Mogg, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Jopling, L, Renton, L.
Kimball, L. Richardson of Calow, B.
Kingsland, L. Rix, L.
Kirkham, L. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Laidlaw, L. Rogan, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L. Russell-Johnston, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Sandberg, L.
Liverpool, E. Sandwich, E.
Lucas, L. Seccombe, B.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Selsdon, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Sharman, L.
McNally, L. Sharples, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Mar, C. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Methuen, L. Slim, V.
Michie of Gallanach, B. Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. Steinberg, L.
Monro of Langholm, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Monson, L. Strange, B.
Montrose, D. Swinfen, L.
Morris of Bolton, B. Tenby, V.
Morris of Manchester, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Tope, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Trumpington, B.
Noakes, B. Ullswater, V.
Northbourne, L. Vallance of Tummel, L.
Northover, B. Vincent of Coleshill, L.
O'Cathain, B. Waddington, L.
Palmer, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Peel, E. Walmsley, B.
Perry of Southwark, B. Watson of Richmond, L.
Peyton of Yeovil, L. Weatherill, L.
Plumb, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Prashar, B. Williamson of Horton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Desai, L.
Alli, L. Dixon, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council) Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Bach, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Barnett, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Filkin, L.
Bhattacharyya, L. Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Billingham, B. Gale, B.
Blackstone, B. Gavron, L.
Boothroyd, B. Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Borrie, L. Giddens, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Goudie, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Brookman, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Burlison, L. Grocott, L. [Teller]
Campbell-Savours, L. Harris of Haringey, L.
Carter, L. Harrison, L.
Christopher, L. Hart of Chilton, L.
Clark of Windermere, L. Haskel, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Haworth, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Hayman, B.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. Henig, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Crawley, B. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
David, B. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Radice, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Jay of Paddington, B. Richard, L.
Jones, L. Rooker, L.
Jordan, L. Rosser, L.
Judd, L. Rowlands, L.
Kirkhill, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Leitch, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Lipsey, L. Sawyer, L.
Lockwood, B. Scotland of Asthal, B.
McDonagh, B. Sewel, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Sheldon, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Simon, V.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Smith of Leigh, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Massey of Darwen, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Maxton, L. Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Tomlinson, L.
Mishcon, L. Triesman, L.
Mitchell, L. Truscott, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B. Tunnicliffe, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L. Turnberg, L.
Murphy, B. Turner of Camden, B.
Parekh, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Peston, L. Warner, L.
Pitkeathley, B. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Plant of Highfield, L. Whitaker, B.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Whitty, L.
Prosser, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Prys-Davies, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Puttnam, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.